Nisha v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr.No.208 Case No. : CRM-M-22243-2025 Decided On : May 19, 2025 Nisha ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0124 dated 24.03.2025, under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 318(4), 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Gohana City, District Sonipat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner was only a member of Human Welfare Credit and Thrift Co-operative Society Ltd. (for brevity - the Society) and never worked there at any point of time. The money of the complainant and his family was deposited with the Society. The complainant is also an Agent of the Society and commission was taken by the complainant. The counsel has argued that the aforesaid Society is being run all over India and there are thousands of
investors and depositors associated with it and no specific attribution has been made qua the petitioner. So, he has prayed that the petitioner be admitted to anticipatory bail.
Pursuant to notice of motion in this case on 28.04.2025, Status Report was filed by the respondent - State, on the last date of hearing. Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition, while contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and hundreds of people have been duped of their hard-earned money in a pre-planned manner. It has also been contended that the petitioner, along with her family members, was involved in getting the deposit of huge amounts from the complainant and his family members and then, duped the said amount and the Society was shut down within a night and keeping in view all these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
The main allegations in the present case have been levelled against accused Krishan Gopal Ahuja, who happens to be husband of the petitioner. No specific allegation or role has been assigned to the petitioner. There is no specific allegation that any money was ever handed over to her. As per Status Report, submitted by learned State Counsel, no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and her custodial interrogation is not required for any purpose. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.
Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case,
the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. May 19, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.